Talk:Notable Kongai Players
=Let's keep this page neutral= It's a wiki afterall, so refrain from using highly subjective sentences such as "He is the best Kongai player that ever was and ever will be in the universe+1". Just put in the facts and add some humor if you want to. Max Vultur 01:25, August 12, 2010 (UTC) =Restoring the old version of this article= :I've been thinking about this: why did the article changed like this from its old version? This is just an high-score list without the cheaters, which is nice to have but not worth a page. The old article was an insight on the Kongai community, which is why this page exists in the first place, until some anonymous (which I suspect was CompleteDisaster, looking at how is new voice was all about his glorification) decided to change it all without saying nothing, and everyone got along with it without stating why. I suggest to revert it back updated, while still keeping these two lists in it. -Max Vultur 18:23, July 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Agreed, it is fairly pointless as is -Shadowinfinity 14:39, July 21, 2010 (UTC) :: Well, since nobody opposed, I brought back the old page updated. I've also add an "hall of shame", maybe a bad idea? Max Vultur 20:09, July 21, 2010 (UTC) Deletion for this article ::::::::::This article is being considered for deletion. Please share your thoughts over here. --Juze 09:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Delete the article... I agree, this is unnecessary and not really of any importance to the game. The iBot 23:45, May 2, 2010 (UTC) :Ever checked the date of post and history? I removed delete tag because it was improved a lot but don't really know about now again. Feel free to tag with . [[User:Juze|'Ju']][[User talk:Juze|'ze']] 09:23, June 24, 2010 (UTC) Credits To Hackers For Most Wins? Wow Enough Said —''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' 68.50.11.70 (talk • ) at 23:24, June 22, 2010 (UTC). :Please sign your comments with four (4) tildes ~~~~ or by using the signature button. Thanks. [[User:Juze|'Ju']][[User talk:Juze|'ze']] 09:23, June 24, 2010 (UTC) Hall of Shame I've removed this one again, as I see it as possible way of vandalism/trolling, as there are no references to it either. Please don't add it back, or I'll have to lock the article. [[User:Juze|'Ju']][[User talk:Juze|'ze']] 05:50, September 27, 2010 (UTC) :"Again"? From what I see in the history, you removed it only once. Anyway, usually the best solution would be to ban/block the vandal, and this should be the case according to the Disruption and Blocking policies of this wiki. As for references I can put them, for what concerns CD anyway (in LordScamz's case the admin didn't leave any lasting comment or the likes when he resetted his rank points to 0, but that isn't a problem is it?). I really don't think the HoS should be left off, especially considering it would be doing a favor to a vandal and a cheater. Max Vultur 03:22, September 29, 2010 (UTC) :: Well, tomorrow I'm gonna re-add the section, adding references for proofs. If there's something against it it should be said now. As for the reasons: http://forums.sirlin.net/showthread.php?t=3390&page=6 Max Vultur 15:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :: ::: Apart from it basically being an open invitation for attacks there isn't really anything wrong with it, as long as it doesn't personally attack the people on the list. Keep it professional and leave the information on it as what they did, nothing about the player themselves. PKA 18:00, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :::: Maybe that's how some people perceive it, but it's not its purpose as the link shows. In any case, apart from the title (which I changed) it was all written in the most impartial way possible. As such I changed nothing in the contents, although I added references where I could. --Max Vultur 22:17, October 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::: I felt I had to remove the last citation, as your evidence only points to an anonymous account on the wiki. If he had registered an account, or if proof could be otherwise attributed to his vandalism, it could be readded, but as it stands now, we have no way of positively identifying that vandal as the same person who owns that Kongregate account. Otherwise, I don't see any problem with the section, as long as it is maintained in a professional manner, and does not personally attack any user. --[[User:Xensyr|'xensyr']] talk. 00:23, October 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::: I understand, but if an anonymous that wrote "CD is the best", "CD is not a cheater, stop that or I'll continue to vandalize this wiki" and things like that can't be assumed to be CD himself, then you put really high standards when it comes to references. Even if he did make an account, we couldn't tell if it was him or somebody posing as him and so on, it would come to having him at gun-point and oblige him to confess everything in order to have a totally objective proof of guiltiness. Mind you, it does make sense to be as objective as possible if you want, but then one begins to wonder if every other page on this wikia abides to this rule the same.--Max Vultur 13:34, October 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::::: The chat room pages are given far more latitude in how objective they are, because of their community type setting. I don't know why you are arguing so heavily to show that he also vandalized the wiki. If anyone cared to look, they'd see this discussion and the check the history. Let whoever is interest come to their own opinions. As it stands, there isn't enough evidence to outright state it. --[[User:Xensyr|'xensyr']] talk. 14:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::It's really a stretch to define one response as "arguing heavily", but anyway, as I said up above this page serves (also) as an insight on the Kongai community, with its pros and cons. Also, not everyone is that practical with wikis. If necessary, I can modify the sentence in order to avoid any specific accusation, and only write about the vandalization and its contents, but only if it can't be done otherwise.Max Vultur 15:45, October 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::You've been arguing for a hall of shame in some fashion since the 29th of September, with multiple posts on the topic. The vandalism is a matter of record, and I don't see how pointing out the allegation matters. --[[User:Xensyr|'xensyr']] talk. 15:52, October 28, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::What's the meaning of your answer? "Multiple posts" are to be expected on the majority of topics, and the argument really began only 3 days ago and it's going on slowly. Also, the HoS as a whole it's different from simply arguing about the vandalization, if I can point out the obvious. Anyway, I'm not the one who started this. I'm just arguing as long as there's someone who starts an argument, and probably I'll keep up until I found a valid reason to not revert back the page. I want to keep it that way because, as I already explained, it's an insight on the Kongai community cons, and as such it gives a better understanding of what kind of user (not person, user) CD is, since for better or for worse he's part of it. :::::::::I really want to cut things short, so if there's actually part of the policy this page, as a community page, doesn't respect, then I will change the sentence into a non-incriminating one. If not, let's drop this discussion altogether, it doesn't make sense to not put something in an article if it doesn't break any rules. Max Vultur 19:58, October 28, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::You do not have enough evidence to claim that he was the one to vandalize the page. --[[User:Xensyr|'xensyr']] talk. 14:38, November 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::: :::::::::: Are we going in a loop here? It's a community page, since when do you need fingerprints for that?Max Vultur 23:34, November 4, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::: :::::::::: Considering that it seems you're more interested in making a messy edit war than actually resolve the problem, I've modified that part into a more neutral one. I hope that puts and end to this argument, although it can't be said the administration dealed with this competently. Max Vultur 19:10, November 10, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::: Well I'm sorry you feel that way. It IS a community page, and while you may find it unlikely that someone would pose as another person for 'lulz', I can see that possibility. I think the rewriting of the phrase sounds much better. I'm not sure why this was such a big deal to have included anyway, as you already had the most damning evidence displayed. Even without the last piece added, an overall view could be established of his demeanor and personality. Anyway, I'm glad this is resolved, if you want to discuss it further, that's fine. --[[User:Xensyr|'xensyr']] talk. 15:01, November 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::: Late answer, but better late than never. I discarded the possibility of someone doing it for the "lulz" because it is a behavior that fits CD like a glove and also because the first edits of that guy were relatively mild, while a guy who does things for the lulz usually tries to be the most annoying he can. It's not that I think it isn't possible, it can be that it is some unusual troll, but it's a huge stretch to say so and it seems like an unecessary nitpick in a community page. And like I said, the big deal was created by you guys, I just didn't put it off by answering. I didn't want to, I don't like to do something like this without a valid reason behind it, even if the readers could have figured out that it was CD by themselves.Max Vultur 01:05, November 24, 2010 (UTC)